Sign In
or Create a new account
Parties to the Agreement
What parts of government should the agreement apply to, and is the term 'Communities of Aotearoa New Zealand' sufficiently inclusive (or too broad)?
It’s important for the relationship agreement to be a joint one. In using the term 'Communities of Aotearoa New Zealand' we mean tangata whenua, community and voluntary organisations, families and individuals. We acknowledge that communities define themselves and we want to include all communities. Government includes Ministers and the state sector, but we welcome feedback from local government and others on how they see their role in relation to this.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Kia Tutahi Background Info - Text version (162 KB)
Comment 1 16 Jul 2010, 4:59 PM
The Steering Group has gone too far by using the term 'communities of Aotearoa New Zealand'. What does that even mean and how can such a loose term be party to an Agreement? There are 4.5 million people in the 'communities of Aotearoa New Zealand' and the majority won't even know this Agreement exists - so it is farcical to pretend that it is an agreement between communities and the government. So to answer your question - yes, the term is too broad.
Comment 1.1 25 Jul 2010, 3:34 PM
If you are really serious that this Agreement is between the "communities (ie: people) of Aoteroa New Zealand" and the government, then you might as well go all the way. Start it with "We the people........" and call it a Constitution. For example, the US Constitution is the framework for the organisation of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government to the states, to citizens, and to all people within the United States. See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Comment 1.2 29 Aug 2010, 7:48 PM
I agree that it is not realistic to consider all "tangata whenua, community and voluntary organisations, families and individuals" to be party to an agreement" but the desire to include all is laudable. I am constantly frustrated that "consultation" happens without my knowledge as I don't happen to be on the list of groups or individuals the government considers to be "interested".
"We the people" are unlikely to ever be satisfied by the amount of influence we have over government actions. I think the concept of "agreement" is flawed. What we need is for the government to develop best consultation practice and be consistent about its methods over all issues. Then we can be educated as to how to keep ourselves up to date about consultations and how to participate when we want to.
Any "agreement" can only be with participating parties - preferably signatories - it cannot be with "tangata whenua, community and voluntary organisations, families and individuals".
Comment 2 16 Jul 2010, 5:01 PM
The 'government' party is much easier to quantify and I think that the Agreement should apply to Cabinet and the entire State Sector, including local government. Sure local government has its own legislation, but presumably there is nothing in the Agreement that is at odds with that legislation, and if there is, then the legislation would need to be changed - because NO legislation or government decisions should be going against the principles of the Agreement. Isn't that the whole point of having an Agreement - to influence what government does? The State Services Commission could provide a list of every agency and each Chief Executive could have a reference to the Agreement in their job description. When government Ministers are sworn in, they could make a declaration to abide by the Agreement - which makes it important that all political parties agree to the wording of the Agreement too. (If possible, every MP could swear to abide by the Agreement too.) The Agreement must be long term and multi-political party to make a difference.
Comment 3 20 Jul 2010, 7:42 PM
By suggesting that one of the parties to the agreement is 'communities of Aotearoa NZ', it seems that the steering group has been distracted by focusing on achieving good results for communities (which of course is an admirable aim and something we all want). But this does not mean that the Agreement should necessarily be between citizens and the government. The real tensions (funding issues, being left out of policy and service development processes, etc) are between community organisations/groups (both formal and informal) and the government - so that is what the Agreement should be trying to fix. If these more…
Comment 3.1 25 Jul 2010, 3:47 PM
Your information says the steering group was established by the Minister for the Community and Voluntary SECTOR. The sector is made up of organisations, groups, collectives, etc. To try and extend this Agreement to individuals will make the document too loose and woolly - and therefore completely ineffective. The Steering Group needs to consider the history of why an Agreement was called for and the origins of the Statement of Government Intentions from 2001. Have the Steering Group members actually read their own background information?? The SECTOR itself is 97,000 organisations - to inform them about the Agreement and make a difference for all of them is a big challenge, without pretending that the entire population will be party to it. Set a realistic challenge by focusing the Agreement between the community SECTOR (ie: groups) and government.
Comment 4 22 Jul 2010, 1:48 PM
I do not think that "individuals" should be included as parties to the Agreement. Families have a legit place in the agreement (the family is the first community we live in, after all). I do wonder if the better resourced, professionalised and connected social service providers will end up being the primary target/users of the Agreement - with small, informal, totally volunteer groups being just as squeezed out of the room as they are currently.
Comment 5 22 Jul 2010, 9:36 PM
A major flaw in the consultation process is also that unless there is some way of reimbursement for time, the majority of the 'communities of Aotearoa New Zealand' will not be able to join in the discussion.
Comment 6 23 Jul 2010, 3:50 PM
Hapu, Iwi and Local Govt need to consulted. All Local Govts need to sign up.
"All" communities - possible change to ALL...
Comment 7 25 Jul 2010, 3:35 PM
You say that "others who wish to show their support and adoption of the agreement can sign.......", so if I am part of a community or organisation that has not signed the Agreement does that mean the government can walk all over me and does not have to treat my community as well as a community / organisation that has?? Will my community be left out of processes etc if we are not a signatory to the Agreement?
Comment 8 26 Jul 2010, 2:27 PM
Additional discussion is also appearing online in response to an item from the NZ Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. You can see these comments at http://www.nzfvwo.org.nz/featured/draft-relationship-agreement-with-government-feels-hollow/
Please share your thoughts here or there after reading what others have to say.
Comment 9 4 Aug 2010, 6:52 AM
It is proposed that Communities of Aotearoa , rather than Tangata Whenua, Community & Voluntary sector is the community party to this Agreement. We certainly recognise that our sector is not the community, but have been seeking a relationship agreement between our sector and Government and feel this definition is a re-statement of the social contract between people and Government. It does not advance the cause of a strong well-connected and informed sector.